THE SCOPE OF TORTURE AND OTHER CRUEL, INHUMAN OR DEGRADING TREATMENT OR PUNISHMENT 20. Amnesty International considers that the Guidance does not sufficiently reflect international standards regarding CIDTP. The UN Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment states that CIDTP should be “interpreted so as to extend the widest possible protection against abuses, whether physical or mental.” This principle is not reproduced in the Guidance. The Committee against Torture has emphasized that states’ obligations to prevent torture and CIDTP are “indivisible, interdependent and interrelated”5 and the Committee against Torture and Human Rights Committee have both indicated that apart from the distinct regime of obligations to criminalize torture, there are few reasons to differentiate between torture and CIDTP when it comes to state responsibility. Yet the Guidance appears based in large part on a claim that “it is legitimate to differentiate between torture and CIDT” in a much broader range of aspects (Paragraph 5). 21. While there may be no definition of what constitutes CIDTP that is both agreed and exhaustive there are indeed agreed definitions for use in particular contexts. For example, the Elements of Crimes agreed by states under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court includes, for the purposes of the Court’s jurisdiction, a definition of “inhuman treatment”, and humiliating or degrading treatment are part of the definition of “outrages upon personal dignity”. There is also a considerable body of jurisprudence from the European Court of Human Rights and other bodies to allow clearer characterization of particular practices. The fact that and the degree to which the Guidance qualifies its characterization of the list of practices in Annex Paragraph d is a matter of serious concern. On the one hand we welcome the express recognition that the list of techniques is not exhaustive. However, instead of simply stating that the listed practices “could constitute” CIDTP, a guidance in line with international law might at the very least say they “should be presumed” to constitute CIDTP, if not simply stating they do “constitute” CIDTP. The word “could” ought only to refer to the fact that “in some cases the following practices could constitute torture”. We would urge the ISC to seek public clarification from the Government as to under what circumstances: a. it considers the use of stress positions against a prisoner, or physical abuse of a prisoner, not to constitute at least “degrading” treatment, if not “cruel or inhuman” treatment, under the relevant treaties and jurisprudence; and b. conduct might be regarded as “degrading treatment” as listed in Annex d(iv), and yet not constitute “degrading treatment” under the rest of the Guidance. ADDITIONAL INSTRUCTIONS AND TRAINING 22. The appended “Note on the Text” refers to additional departmental legal, procedural and administrative materials from each organization where “necessary” or “helpful.” Given the ambiguities and omissions identified above, Amnesty International calls on the ISC to urge the Government to recognize publicly that additional materials concerning the prohibition of torture CIDTP will indeed be necessary for personnel subject to the Guidance 23. It remains unclear whether all personnel involved in the detention and interrogation of detainees, including all members of the armed forces or other government agencies, private contractors, medical personnel and interpreters, receive full training, including practical methods to prevent torture, with input from international experts on the international prohibition of torture and CIDTP and their obligation to prevent and expose such abuse. To date the Government has confirmed to Amnesty International only that intelligence officers and service personnel receive comprehensive training in making “risk assessments”. The UK’s international law obligations under article 10 of the Convention against Torture require significantly more. EUR 45/012/2014 5 31 October 2014

Select target paragraph3